SOER 2015 Synthesis report - PDF versionhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/synthesis/report/action-download-pdf-old/view
No publishersoer2015 synthesisresource efficiencysoer2015synthesis2015/03/03 09:05:00 GMT+1FileMaterial resource use (DMC) per capitahttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/domestic-material-consumption
No publisherdmc per capitaresource efficiencysoer2015 cross-country comparisonssoer20152015/02/28 00:00:00 GMT+1Data VisualizationEurope's environment 2015: Future prosperity depends on bolder steps in policy, knowledge, investments and innovationhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/media/newsreleases/future-prosperity-depends-on-bolder
Europe's environment and climate policies have delivered substantial benefits, improving the environment and quality of life, while driving innovation, job creation and growth. Despite these gains, Europe still faces a range of persistent and growing environmental challenges. Addressing them will require fundamental changes in the systems of production and consumption that are the root cause of environmental problems. These are some of the key messages from the European Environment Agency's five-yearly assessment 'The European environment – state and outlook 2015' (SOER 2015), published today. SOER 2015 is an integrated assessment of Europe's environment. It also includes assessments and data at global, regional and country levels, as well as cross-country comparisons.

EU policies have delivered substantial benefits

Today, Europeans enjoy cleaner air and water, less waste is sent to landfill and more resources are recycled. However, Europe remains a long way from achieving the objective of 'living well within the limits of the planet' by 2050, as set out in the 7th Environment Action Programme. Although we use natural resources more efficiently than previously, we are still degrading the resource base that we rely on in Europe and across the world. Problems such as biodiversity loss and climate change remain major threats.

Hans Bruyninckx, EEA Executive Director, said: 'Our analysis shows that European policies have successfully tackled many environmental challenges over the years. But it also shows that we continue to harm the natural systems that sustain our prosperity. While living within planetary limits is an immense challenge, there are huge benefits in responding to it. Fully using Europe's capacity to innovate could make us truly sustainable and put us at the frontier of science and technology, creating new industries and a healthier society.'

SOER 2015 highlights the need for more ambitious policies to achieve Europe's 2050 vision. It also stresses the need for new approaches that respond to the systemic nature of many environmental problems. For example, external pressures, including global megatrends, can counteract specific policies and local environmental management efforts. In addition, many environmental challenges are closely linked to systems of production and consumption that support numerous jobs and livelihoods and changes to these systems create diverse costs and benefits. Moreover, efficiency improvements are often negated by increased consumption.

The report concludes that although full implementation of existing policies will be essential, neither the environmental policies currently in place, nor economic and technology-driven efficiency gains, will be sufficient to achieve Europe's 2050 vision.

Dr Bruyninckx continued: 'We have 35 years to ensure that we live on a sustainable planet by 2050. This may seem like a distant future, but to achieve our goal, we need to act now. We need our actions and investments to be even more ambitious and more coherent. Many of the decisions we make today will determine how we are going to live in 2050.'

SOER 2015: selected facts and trends

Natural capital

EU policies have reduced pollution and have significantly improved the quality of Europe's air and water. However, continued ecosystem degradation threatens Europe's economic output and well-being.

Biodiversity continues to be eroded. Sixty percent of protected species assessments and 77% of habitat assessments recorded an unfavourable conservation status. Europe is not on track to meet its 2020 target of halting biodiversity loss.

Fresh water quality has improved over recent years, however, around half of Europe's freshwater bodies are unlikely to attain 'good ecological status' in 2015.

Marine and coastal biodiversity is a particular area of concern. Pressures include sea floor damage, pollution, invasive alien species and acidification. Overfishing has decreased in the Atlantic and Baltic, but the Mediterranean shows a more negative picture, with 91% of assessed stocks overfished in 2014.

Less than 6% of Europe's farmed area was used for organic agriculture in 2012, with large differences between countries.

Looking ahead, climate change impacts are projected to intensify pressures and impacts and the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss are expected to persist.

Resource efficiency

Domestic resource consumption was 16.7 tonnes per person in 2007, declining to 13.7 tonnes in 2012, partly due to the collapse of the construction industry in some countries.

Waste management has improved in recent years, with less waste generated and less waste sent to landfill. Recycling rates increased in 21 countries between 2004 and 2012, while landfilling rates decreased in 27 out of 31 countries (for which data are available). EEA countries achieved an average recycling rate of 29% in 2012, compared to 22% in 2004.

Greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 19% since 1990 despite a 45% increase in economic output. Fossil fuel use has declined, as have emissions of some pollutants from transport and industry.

The 2008 financial crisis and subsequent economic difficulties also contributed to the reductions in some environmental pressures. It remains to be seen whether improvements will be sustained.

Currently agreed policies are not sufficient for Europe to achieve its long-term environmental goals, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95%.

Health and well-being

Environmental policies have brought improvements in drinking water and bathing water quality, and have reduced exposure to key hazardous pollutants.

Air and noise pollution continue to cause serious health impacts in urban areas. In 2011, about 430 000 premature deaths in the EU were attributed to fine particulate matter while noise exposure contributes to at least 10 000 premature deaths due to heart disease each year.

The growing use of chemicals, particularly in consumer products, has been associated with an observed increase of endocrine diseases and disorders in humans.

Projected improvements in air quality are not expected to be sufficient to prevent continuing harm, while impacts resulting from climate change are expected to worsen.

The environment industry sector grew by more than 50% from 2000 to 2011, and is one of the few sectors to have flourished in terms of revenues and jobs since the 2008 financial crisis.

Notes to the editor

About the EEA

The European Environment Agency (EEA) is an agency of the European Union. It aims to support sustainable development and to help achieve significant and measurable improvement in Europe's environment by providing timely, targeted, relevant and reliable information to policymaking agents and the public. It is supported in its work by the European environment information and observation network (Eionet), a network of 39 European countries.

About SOER 2015

'The European environment – state and outlook 2015' is made up of two reports and 87 online briefings. These comprise the 'Synthesis' report and the 'Assessment of global megatrends' report, complemented by 11 global megatrends briefings, 25 European briefings, nine cross-country comparison briefings, 39 country briefings (based on national state of environment reports), and three regional briefings.

SOER 2015:

Provides a comprehensive, integrated assessment of the European environment's state, trends and prospects in a global context.

Informs European environmental policy implementation between 2015 and 2020.

Analyses the opportunities to modify existing policies (and the knowledge used to inform those policies) in order to achieve the European Union's 2050 vision of living well within the limits of the planet.

It has been prepared as a joint undertaking in close collaboration with the Eionet, as well as European Commission services. In addition, several international organisations have been involved in the peer review of the assessment.

The concept of the ‘green economy’ has emerged in recent years as a strategic priority for governments and intergovernmental organisations.[e.g. 1][2] In Europe, it features prominently in a range of medium- and long-term EU programmes and strategies, including the Europe 2020 Strategy,[3] the 7th Environment Action Programme,[4] the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020)[5] and sectoral policies in areas such as transport and energy.

Figure 1: Correlation of ecological footprint (2008) and the human development index (2012)

The growing prominence of the green economy in EU policy reflects a recognition that the prevailing economic paradigm is inconsistent with Europe’s long-term development goals, encapsulated in the 2050 vision of ‘living well within the planet’s limits’.[4] Across the world, the transition to high levels of human development has been achieved by adopting production and consumption patterns that put a disproportionate burden on the environment (Figure 1). As a result, some countries today live well, while others live within the limits of the planet. None do both.

A ‘green’ economy is essentially one in which socio-economic systems are organised in ways that enable society to live well within planetary boundaries. The concept therefore has several dimensions. The first is a focus on increasing resource efficiency: identifying the innovations and approaches that enable society to extract maximum value from resources and minimise harmful emissions and waste.

Although essential, resource efficiency alone will not guarantee that natural capital stocks are maintained for future generations or that economic activity delivers acceptable living standards and social cohesion. Efforts to enhance resource efficiency must therefore be complemented with a focus on ecosystem resilience and on people's well-being. After all, an economic model that transcends ecosystem boundaries will not be sustainable in the long term; one that cannot provide decent jobs and earnings will not be politically or socially viable.

Trends

Resource efficiency

Europe’s resource efficiency has increased in recent years, alleviating some of the environmental pressures associated with economic production. For example, EU-28 greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by 19 % since 1990 despite a 45 % increase in gross domestic product. Fossil fuel use has also declined, as have emissions of some pollutants from transport and industry. More recently, the EU’s total resource use has declined by 19 % since 2007, less waste is being generated and recycling rates have improved in nearly every country.

These trends potentially mark important progress in Europe’s efforts to reconfigure its production-consumption systems but significant problems persist. European resource use and harmful emissions remain high in absolute terms. Some of the apparent efficiency improvements may partially reflect the relocation of material extraction and manufacturing to other parts of the world. And the level of ambition of existing environmental policy may be inadequate to achieve Europe’s long-term environment and climate objectives. For example, projected greenhouse gas emissions reductions are currently insufficient to bring the EU onto a pathway towards its target of reducing emissions by 80–95 % by 2050.

Environmental resilience and people's well-being

In addition, Europe’s recent progress in reducing environmental pressures has not always been matched by improved ecosystem resilience or reduced risks to people's health and well-being. For example, although water pollution is declining, most freshwater bodies across Europe are not expected to achieve good ecological status by 2015. Similarly, Europe is not on track to meet its overall target of halting biodiversity loss by 2020, even though some more specific targets are being met. Loss of soil functions, land degradation and climate change remain major threats to ecosystem resilience, undermining flows of environmental goods and services and therefore jeopardising the social resilience of communities reliant on them.

Turning to people's health and well-being, there have been marked improvements in the quality of drinking water and bathing water and some reductions in hazardous pollutants. However, air and noise pollution continue to cause serious health impacts. In 2011, about 430 000 premature deaths in the EU were attributed to fine particulate matter (PM2.5),[7] while exposure to environmental noise is estimated to contribute to at least 10 000 premature deaths due to coronary heart disease and strokes each year.[8] Environmental impacts on human health and well-being are particularly pronounced in urban settings where multiple pressures coexist. Conversely, well planned urban areas providing easy access to natural, green environments can deliver substantial health and well-being benefits, including protection from the impacts of climate change.[9]

Environmental policies are also creating socio-economic opportunities and thereby contributing to the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. For example, employment in the environment industry sector, which produces goods and services that reduce environmental degradation and maintain natural resources, increased by 44 % between 2000 and 2011, while sectoral value added increased by 57 %. It has been one of the few economic sectors to have flourished in terms of revenues, trade and jobs since the 2008 financial crisis.

Response

The trends set out above indicate that although policy has delivered some important advances, Europe remains a long way from achieving the transition to a green economy.

In part this reflects the fact that the complex links between environmental and socio-economic systems can undermine efforts to reduce environmental pressures and related impacts. For example, technology-driven efficiency gains may be undermined by lifestyle changes or increased consumption, partly because efficiency improvements can make outputs cheaper (the rebound effect). Policies and local management efforts can be counteracted by external pressures related to global megatrends. Changing exposure patterns and human vulnerabilities, for example linked to urbanisation, can offset reductions in pressures. And the unsustainable systems of production and consumption that are responsible for many environmental pressures also provide diverse benefits, such as jobs and earnings, which can create strong incentives for sectors or communities to resist change.

The systemic, transboundary and long-term characteristics of the environmental challenges facing Europe indicate that neither environmental policies alone, nor economic and technology-driven efficiency gains will be sufficient to effect the transition to a green economy. Rather, transition will require more fundamental changes in the global production-consumption systems that meet basic demands, such as for food, mobility, energy and shelter.

The 7th Environment Action Programme sets out four key pillars of an enabling framework for the transition to a green economy: implementation, integration, information and investments. In a green economy approach, the focus is on identifying synergies that enable economic, environmental and social objectives to be advanced concurrently.

For example, implementation of environmental regulations plays an important role in protecting ecosystems but can also contribute to enhanced resource-efficiency by incentivising companies to invest in eco-innovation. This in turn gives businesses a ‘first-mover’ advantage to export their innovations abroad, thus generating earnings and jobs. Major EU engineering companies already earn up to 40 % of revenues from their environment portfolios, and this is set to increase.[10] Similarly, taxing environmentally damaging activities can raise revenues, allowing governments to reduce taxes on labour or reduce budget deficits. Combined with eliminating environmentally harmful subsidies, such fiscal reforms are essential in the transition to a green economy.

The green economy perspective provides a framework for integrating the environment into the policies of key economic sectors. For example, European policy on material resource use can be represented as a nested set of objectives (Figure 2). Whereas a circular economy focuses on optimising material resource flows by minimising waste, the green economy approach extends the focus to how water, energy, land and biodiversity should be managed to secure ecosystem resilience and human well-being. The green economy also addresses wider issues, such as competitiveness and unequal exposure to environmental pressures and access to green spaces.

In addition, efforts to promote a renaissance of industry in Europe[e.g.11] could form part of an integrated approach to managing production and consumption so as to ensure that efficiency improvements are secured across the supply chain.

Figure 2: The green economy as an integrating framework for policies on material use

Expanding the environmental knowledge base can support better implementation and integration of environment and climate policy, inform investment choices, and support long-term transitions. An expanded knowledge base also enables policymakers and businesses to take decisions that fully reflect environmental limits, risks, uncertainties, benefits and costs.

At present there is a gap between available, established monitoring, data and indicators and the knowledge required to support transitions. Addressing this gap requires investment in better understanding of systems science, forward-looking information, systemic risks, and the relationship between environmental change and human well-being. Accounting systems — both physical and monetary — are also important to inform policy and investment decisions, because getting the balance right between use, protection and enhancement of natural capital requires information on the current status of stocks and flows.[12][13]

Investment has an essential role in the transition to a green economy, in part because the systems that meet basic social needs such as water, energy and mobility rely on costly and long-lasting infrastructure. Investment choices can therefore have long-term implications for the functioning of these systems and their impacts, as well as for the viability of alternative technologies. Transitions depend in part on avoiding investments that lock in existing technologies, limit options, or hinder the development of substitutes.

Enormous amounts of capital are needed to finance infrastructure such as smart electrical grids, renewable energies, electrification of transport, and resource-efficient buildings. In addition to fiscal reforms, innovative financing mechanisms, such as the project bond initiative of the European Commission and the European Investment Bank, socially responsible investments (SRI), green bonds and sovereign wealth funds (SWF), are potential tools for supplying the needed funds.[14]

Designing actionable, credible and feasible green economy pathways can put Europe at the frontier of science and technology. But effecting the needed transitions will demand ingenuity, creativity, courage and a greater sense of urgency.

Natural resources underpin economic and social development, and over-consumption of these resources has resulted in environmental degradation and economic losses. Improving the resource efficiency of European economies and societies is essential, and this objective has been on the European environmental policy agenda for more than a decade.[1][2][3]

The SOER 2015 briefing on resource efficiency provides an overview of the status, trends and prospects at a European level. This SOER 2015 cross-country comparison focuses on material resources and uses resource productivity, the headline indicator chosen to monitor trends in resource efficiency under the Roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe.[4]

About the indicator

Resource productivity is defined as the ratio between gross domestic product (GDP) and domestic material consumption (DMC). DMC measures the total amount of materials directly used by an economy, and is defined as the annual quantity of raw materials extracted from the domestic territory, plus all physical imports minus all physical exports. It is expressed in tonnes per capita. This indicator is regularly published by Eurostat for individual countries and the EU as a whole.[5][6]

DMC does not include upstream material use related to imports and exports originating outside of the focal economy. Therefore Raw Material Consumption (RMC) has been proposed as a complementary indicator, as it better accounts for resource use embedded in trade. Modelling estimates for RMC have been produced by Eurostat for the EU-27 but are only available for a few individual countries.

Policies, targets and progress

Resource efficiency is a strategic priority of the Europe 2020 Strategy, a policy response to address a wide spectrum of important economic and environmental concerns.[7] In 2010, a flagship initiative for a resource-efficient Europe was adopted[8] and the resulting 2011 Roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe identified milestones for specific areas and almost a hundred individual actions to be taken by the European Commission and Member States.[4] One of the priority objectives of the 7th Environment Action Programme, which will guide European environment policy until 2020, is to 'turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy'.[9]

However, no targets have yet been adopted for resource use or resource efficiency at a European level. In the recent communication, Towards a circular economy: a zero-waste programme for Europe,[10] the European Commission proposed the adoption of a resource-productivity target, and it is hoped that this would provide an impetus for countries to also adopt targets. At present, only a few individual countries (e.g. Germany) have concrete and measurable targets accompanied by a deadline.[11]

Many European countries have developed their own national programmes or strategies for resource efficiency. These initially tended to address individual topics such as energy consumption or waste recycling. However, they have gradually expanded to cover wasteful production and consumption patterns; the increasing cost of energy and raw materials; the rising global demand for raw materials; concerns over depletion of resources and the security of supply; environmental pollution; and global impacts of greenhouse-gas emissions.

A review of national initiatives shows that there is a great variety of regulatory settings and organisational arrangements in place in relation to resource-efficiency policies.[11] National policy priorities and responses are guided by EU regulations but vary widely, driven by a combination of local economic and geographic conditions, environmental priorities, and economic concerns.

The total use of material resources is strongly correlated with the population of a country and the size and structure of its economy. In 2012, the three countries with the largest total DMC were Germany, France, and Poland, while those with the lowest were Malta, Luxembourg and Cyprus.

The economic crisis that started in 2008 has been a major factor shaping trends in resource use. In individual countries and at European level, the most significant changes in resource use took place during 2007–2011 (Figure 1). In the EU-27, DMC grew from 15.6 tonnes/capita in 2000, peaked at 16.7 in 2007, before declining by 19% to the current figure of 13.7 in 2012 (Figure 1). In 2012, the countries with the highest per capita DMC were Finland, Estonia and Ireland, while the lowest were Spain, Hungary and the United Kingdom.

Figure 1: Material resource use (DMC) per capita in 32 European countries (2000, 2007 and 2012)

There has been a reduction in per capita DMC in the majority of countries over the period 2000 to 2012. The largest decline was recorded in Ireland (50%) (Box 1) and Spain (49%) — mainly caused by a collapse in construction activities — followed by Italy (38%) and Cyprus (32%). Per capita DMC increased in 13 countries, and the largest per-capita increases over this period — primarily due to large-scale infrastructure investments — were recorded in Romania (178%), Estonia (104%), Lithuania (54%), Bulgaria (46%) and Turkey (44%).

Box 1: A collapse of the construction sector

Figure 2: Ireland total DMC by component (2000, 2007 and 2012)

Between 2000 and 2007, Ireland had the highest DMC per capita in the European Union, at three times the EU-27 average. This was due to the construction boom resulting in very high consumption of construction minerals (38 tonnes per capita of minerals alone in 2007 — more than twice the average total DMC per capita). Another contributing factor was large-scale agricultural production, resulting in the second highest DMC-biomass per capita in the EU-27 at almost 10 tonnes in 2007.

The economic decline started in 2008, and resulted in the total DMC per capita in Ireland decreasing by 55% between 2007 and 2012, with the use of construction minerals decreasing by 70%. With a DMC per capita of 24.2 tonnes in 2012, Ireland is now third-highest in the EU-27, 77% above the EU-27 average.

Resource productivity, expressed as a ratio of GDP to DMC, links overall resource use to economic activity. Between 2000 and 2012, it increased markedly in the European Union (by 29% for the EU-27 and by 39% for the EU-15), a sign that European economies are creating more wealth out of the material resources that they use, although it also reflects changes in material use and the structure of economies.

The country with the highest resource productivity over the available time series is Switzerland. Switzerland, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have consistently been the most resource-efficient economies in Europe between 2000 and 2012. The increase in resource productivity between 2000 and 2012 was highest in Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Italy, Cyprus and the United Kingdom. Only two countries — Romania and Estonia — experienced a decline in resource productivity in the same period.

There are large differences amongst countries, with little evidence of convergence of resource-productivity rates between 2000 and 2012. Resource productivity is lower in the new member states and in non-EU members. This is partly due to construction sector activity, which dominates material use in many countries.

Prospects

Many factors determine resource use and productivity, including climate, population density, infrastructure needs, domestic availability of raw materials versus reliance on imports, prevailing fuel in the power generation sector, the rate of economic growth, technological development, and the structure of the economy.[12] There is also the long-term tendency for absolute amounts of resources used to increase in tandem with economic growth despite technological progress (the 'rebound' effect).

The long-term objective of current European environmental policies is that the overall environmental impact of all major sectors of the economy should be significantly reduced, and resource efficiency increased.[9] This policy goal —a double decoupling of resource use from both economic growth and environmental impacts— provides a framework and direction for national policies.[8]

The large differences in resource-efficiency performance amongst countries — and the fact that the same half-a-dozen countries have remained at the bottom of resource efficiency rankings since 2000 — indicates opportunities for improvements and actions.

Efforts to support the exchange of good practice in policy design could be one tool to facilitate faster uptake of the most effective solutions. In addition, the use of indicators such as RMC will give a broader perspective on resource productivity, incorporating upstream material use. However, the link to the overall environmental impact of resource use is still not easily captured within available indicators.

Global demand for resources has increased substantially since the start of the 20th century, driven by a number of closely related trends. Across the world, countries have undergone structural economic change, shifting from agrarian societies, primarily reliant on biomass to meet energy and material needs, to urban, industrialised economies (GMT 2). The technological advances that accompanied economic development have provided many more uses for resources, and greatly improved methods for locating and extracting them. Coupled with a quadrupling of the world’s population in the 20th century (GMT 1), innovation has underpinned a 25-fold increase in economic output (GMT 5), bringing radical changes in consumption patterns.

Looking ahead, the global population may increase by more than a third by 2050, reaching 9.6 billion.[1] World economic output is projected to triple in the period 2010–2050.[2] And the middle class may increase from 27 % of the world population of 6.8 billion in 2009 to 58 % of more than 8.4 billion in 2030.[3]

At the same time, however, some of the drivers of past increases in resource use could alleviate demand in the future. For example, continued structural economic change – away from industrialised systems and towards services and the knowledge economy – could offer ways to decouple further economic growth from resource use. Similarly, a continued shift from diffuse rural living to compact urban settlements could translate into less resource-intensive lifestyles (GMT 2).

Trends

Intensifying global demand

Global materials use is estimated to have increased almost ten-fold since 1900, accelerating from annual growth of 1.3 % in 1900–1949, to 2.6 % in 1950–1999, and 3.6 % annually in 2000–2009 (Figure 1).[4]Developing regions account for an increasing proportion of global resource use. Whereas Europe was responsible for 19 % of total resource extraction in 1980 and the US accounted for 18 %, by 2009 both had fallen to 10 %. Asia’s share increased from 41 % to 57 % over the same period.

Resource use tends to rise as countries develop economically. However, there is evidence that growth slows or ceases at high income levels, as a consequence of reduced investment in infrastructure, structural economic change, efficiency improvements and the relocation of some manufacturing to countries with lower labour costs.[5]

Figure 1: Global total material use by resource type, 1900–2009[4]

International Monetary Fund analysis, for example, indicates that consumption of base metals and steel rises in step with per person gross domestic product (GDP) but reaches a saturation point at USD 15 000–20 000 (2000 PPP), except in countries, such as South Korea, where industrial production and construction continue to play a major role in economic growth.[6]

Consumption of energy resources follows a similar pattern. Cross-country analysis shows a strong correlation of energy use to economic output (Figure 2). Yet in many developed countries energy use has been stable for some decades, albeit at very different levels. In 2012, the citizens of EU-28 countries consumed roughly the same amount of energy as they did in the late-1970s. In the US, energy use per person has changed little in almost half a century, while GDP per person has more than doubled.

Data source: World Bank World development indicators - [a], [b] and [c]Note: The graph shows the correlation of national per capita energy consumption and per capita GDP. The size of the bubbles denotes total population per country. All values refer to the year 2011.

While these trends indicate a huge improvement in energy efficiency, it is clear that advanced economies remain very resource intensive. If developing regions adopt similar systems of production and consumption it will have huge implications for global resource demand. For example, if the current global population increased average energy use to EU levels it would imply a 75 % increase in world energy consumption, while an increase to US levels would imply a 270 % rise.

Projections of future resource use indicate that developing regions will drive up global resource demand in coming decades. The Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) expects world resource use to double between 2010 and 2030.[5] The International Energy Agency projects that global energy consumption will increase by 31 % in the period 2012–2035, based on energy policies in place in early-2014.[8]

Uncertain access to critical resources

While global demand for resources is set to grow significantly in coming decades, the outlook for supplies is more uncertain. Geographic concentration of reserves in a limited number of countries is a concern since it affords suppliers considerable influence over global prices and supplies, as illustrated by the influence of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries over global oil markets. Uncertainty regarding access to commodities increases if reserves are concentrated in politically unstable regions.

Certain non-renewable resources deserve particular attention because of their economic relevance, including their role in green-energy technologies. In 2014, the European Commission identified twenty critical raw materials, based on the risks of supply shortage and their economic importance to Europe.[9] Global production of these materials is quite concentrated (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Proportion of global production of EU critical raw materials within a single country, 2010–2012[9]

Data source: European Commision 2014Note: The figure shows the 20 raw materials identified by the European Commission as being critical because of risks of supply shortages and their impact on the economy.

Identifying alternative resource streams

Uncertainty about resource supplies can create strong incentives for countries to identify other ways to meet their resource needs, either by locating new sources of traditional resources or identifying substitutes. For example, rising fossil fuel prices, coupled with state efforts to promote alternatives, have incentivised huge investment in renewable energy in recent years. Global investment rose from USD 40 billion in 2004 to USD 214 billion in 2013. Renewable power capacity, excluding hydropower, increased more than six-fold in this period.[10]

As well as facilitating a move towards other energy sources, technological advances have also boosted access to fossil fuels. Estimates of reserves evolve rapidly as new deposits are discovered and innovation allows previously unusable or unreachable reservoirs to be exploited, for example via deep water drilling and the extraction of shale gas and oil. Indeed, proven global reserves of oil and gas have increased substantially since 1980 – faster than consumption of either resource. As a result, the number of years that proven oil reserves would last at current rates of consumption has increased from 30 to more than 50 years.[11]

Implications

Insecure access to essential resources and price volatility are threats to economic development and living standards. Global commodity prices have spiked repeatedly in recent years, reversing long-term downward trends.[12] Such uncertainty represents a clear risk to the European economy, which is dependent on imported resources, particularly metals and fossil fuels.[13]

In addition to economic risks, attempts to secure access to resources can foster insecurity and conflict.[14] Tensions can arise in connection with competing claims over resource stocks or, less directly, as a result of attempts to restrict trade flows. As the World Trade Organization notes, 'in a world where scarce natural resource endowments must be nurtured and managed with care, uncooperative trade outcomes will fuel international tension and have a deleterious effect on global welfare.'[15]

Escalating resource use also imposes an increasing burden on the environment, through impacts related to resource extraction, use and disposal. Such impacts will increase if higher prices and growing concerns over scarcity induce countries to exploit sources such as tar sands that were previously deemed uneconomic.

Clearly, growing scarcity and rising prices also create strong incentives for private and public investment in research and innovation aimed at exploiting abundant or non-depletable resources, such as wind and solar energy. Governments can augment these incentives through ecological fiscal reform — increasing the tax burden on resource use and pollution.

Innovation can also alleviate resource demands by increasing efficiency or reducing waste, although such improvements can also make products cheaper, incentivising increased consumption. For these reasons, reducing resource demand often requires a mixture of technological improvements and policy measures addressing consumption.

Moreover, technological innovations can also augment pressures on the environment by increasing access to non-renewable or polluting resources. For example, new sources of fossil fuels could weaken the momentum behind global efforts to boost efficiency and mitigate climate change. In globalised markets, governments may have difficulty correcting market prices and pursuing ambitious greenhouse gas mitigation due to opposition from businesses and consumers. The result would be to delay the shift to cleaner alternatives and greatly increase harmful emissions.

In the context of escalating global environmental pressures, it has become increasingly clear that Europe's prevailing model of economic development — based on steadily growing resource use and pollutant emissions — cannot be sustained in the long term. Already today, Europe's ecological footprint is double its land area and the European Union (EU) is heavily reliant on imports of resources. In 2011, the EU imported almost 60% of its fossil fuel and metal resources.[1]

At the most basic level, resource efficiency consists of 'doing more with less'. It captures the relationship of society's burden on nature (in terms of resource extraction, pollution emissions, ecosystem pressures) to the returns generated (e.g. gross domestic product (GDP) or sectoral output) (Box 1).

Resource efficiency has a vital role in facilitating economic development within environmental boundaries, but it also offers broader social and economic gains. These include sustaining non-market ecosystem services (such as purifying air and water), securing supplies of critical resources, increasing competitiveness, and stimulating innovation and job creation.

Europe's medium- and long-term strategic planning recognises the fundamental importance of resource efficiency. For example, the EU's 7th Environment Action Programme (7th EAP)[2] identifies as one of its priority objectives the need to 'turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy.'

Similarly, the EU's Roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe[3] includes a vision for 2050, wherein 'the EU's economy has grown in a way that respects resource constraints and planetary boundaries, thus contributing to global economic transformation.'

Key trends

While the notion of 'doing more with less' is conceptually very simple, quantifying resource efficiency is more complex in practice. Resources differ hugely: some are non-renewable, some renewable; some are depletable, others are not; some are hugely abundant, some extremely scarce.

The environmental impacts of resource use can also vary greatly depending on the timing and location. For these reasons, producing meaningful estimates of the environmental burden associated with economic activity simply by calculating the ratio of resource use to economic output can be problematic.

The EU's Resource Efficiency Scoreboard,[4] which is being developed pursuant to the Roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe, therefore offers a diverse mixture of perspectives on resource efficiency trends. It establishes 'resource productivity' (i.e. the ratio of economic output to material consumption) as its lead indicator, on the basis that materials are the primary link between the economy and the environment.

But it also includes other 'dashboard indicators' on carbon, land and water, as well as 'thematic indicators' on economic and environmental topics.

Box 1: Resource efficiency and decoupling

The resource efficiency challenge is often framed in terms of 'decoupling' economic output from environmental inputs.

Figure 1: Decoupling demystified

Decoupling can take several forms:

Relative decoupling is achieved when an environmental pressure (e.g. resource use or emissions) grows more slowly than the related economic activity (e.g. sectoral gross value added (GVA) or national GDP).

Absolute decoupling is achieved when an environmental pressure remains stable or decreases while economic activity increases.

Impact decoupling is achieved when environmental impacts decline relative to resource use and economic activity.

Increases in resource efficiency will always imply some decoupling of economic activity from environmental pressures. But they do not necessarily indicate absolute or impact decoupling.

Material resource productivity

Resource productivity is defined as the ratio of GDP to domestic material consumption (DMC), i.e. the total amount of materials directly used by an economy, including all physical imports and excluding exports.[5]Eurostat is developing an additional indicator for the EU as a whole, raw material consumption (RMC), which provides a better indication of Europe's resource demands from overseas by including the materials used in producing traded goods and resources. Although the trade flows calculated via this method are much larger, the overall effect on estimates of total EU resource consumption is quite small (an increase of about 5%).

EU-28 resource productivity (GDP/DMC) stood at EUR 1.73/kg in 2012, compared to EUR 1.34/kg in 2000. Despite this improvement, there is little evidence that European resource use has decoupled from economic growth in absolute terms. Although EU-28 total DMC declined between 2000 and 2012, from 7.6 billion tonnes to 6.8 billion tonnes, this was largely due to the economic problems since 2008. Between 2000 and 2007, EU-28 total DMC actually increased by 10%, indicating growing resource use.

Figure 2: EU-27 domestic and raw material consumption

Resource productivity varies significantly across Europe, ranging from EUR 0.2/kg in Bulgaria to EUR 3.6/kg in Switzerland in 2012. There was little evidence of convergence of resource productivity rates between 2000 and 2012. Some of the countries that started with the lowest resource productivity rates recorded negligible improvements or declines during that period. Contrastingly, some of the countries with the highest resource productivity in 2000 recorded the largest percentage increases over the next 12 years. These differences are largely explained by construction sector activity, which dominates resource use in many countries.

Other resource efficiency trends

Turning to the other indicators in the Resource Efficiency Scoreboard, there is evidence that some environmental pressures are decoupling from economic output growth in relative or absolute terms (Box 1). Yet even in cases where pressures are declining, the burden on natural capital often remains excessive, threatening the delivery of the ecosystem services that underpin social and economic development. For example:

EU-28 greenhouse gas emissions declined by 19% between 1990 and 2012, implying a 38% reduction in emissions per EUR of GDP. Despite these improvements, the EU remains far from the 80–95% reduction by 2050 seen as necessary for developed regions.

Water use is decreasing for most sectors and in most regions but agricultural water use, in particular in southern Europe, remains a problem.

The waste intensity of manufacturing and service sector economic output has declined since 2004, as has the municipal waste intensity of household spending. However, municipal waste generation has hardly changed in absolute terms.

Prospects

Europe's systems of production and consumption continue to impose considerable demands on the environment. Meanwhile, global megatrends such as population growth, urbanisation and the emerging 'consumer middle class' in many developing countries are expected to drive steady growth in global competition for resources in coming decades.

Addressing these challenges will require fundamental changes in Europe's systems of resource use and economic growth. One essential aspect of this change will be a shift away from a linear (take-make-dispose) model of resource consumption, towards a circular economywhere nothing is wasted.

Waste prevention and management are clearly important in creating a circular economy but factors such as product design and choice of material inputs also have a major influence. EU policy has already driven improvements in recycling of certain waste streams, yet substantial increases are possible and could greatly reduce reliance on virgin resources. Eco-innovation also has a crucial role, enabling producers to reduce their resource use or shift to less harmful or scarce substitutes (for example in the transition from fossil fuels to solar or wind power).

There is evidence, however, that isolated resource efficiency improvements are often insufficient to guarantee a decline in environmental pressures because the benefits are offset by increasing consumption and lifestyle changes (a phenomenon known as the 'rebound effect'). For example, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from private cars have increased markedly in the last two decades, despite improved fuel efficiency, because Europeans are driving more.

These realities point to the need for more fundamental adjustments to the systems that meet society's demand for goods and services, addressing production and consumption concurrently. New business models that move away from individualised ownership towards service provision and shared consumption of products have an important role here.

Tackling the 'rebound effect' and effecting systemic change in systems of production and consumption will require a smart policy mix, including market-based instruments, regulations, voluntary agreements and labelling approaches. A review of national experience in policy implementation shows that there is no one 'right' combination of policy approaches and instruments. The successful policy mix will be determined by local conditions and will need to address priority concerns first.

]]>No publisherresource useresource efficiencygreen economysustainable resource managementsocio-economy2015/02/18 00:00:00 GMT+1BriefingEnvironmental indicator report 2014http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental-indicator-report-2014
Environmental impacts of production-consumption systems in Europe. This report provides another perspective on the green economy
transition, addressing the global value chains that meet European
demand for goods and services. In doing so, it goes beyond previous
reports and analyses to address the global dimension of Europe's
economic activities. This perspective is highly relevant because
European production and consumption systems rely heavily on
imported resources and goods.No publishergreen economyconsumptionproductionresource efficiencyindicatorsconsumption and production patterns2014/10/20 08:00:00 GMT+1PublicationMagic or recycling?http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/magic-or-recycling
Transforming a bottle into a jacket may sound like magic, but it may be easier than you think. A new video from the European Environment Agency (EEA) shows some of the ingenious ways a plastic water bottle can be reused or recycled.There is currently a drive towards a ‘circular economy’ in the European Union. This is an economic system which retains resources, virtually eliminating waste disposal instead of extracting raw materials, using them once and throwing them away. In a truly circular economy, re-use, repair and recycling become the norm, and waste is a thing of the past. Keeping materials in productive use for longer, reusing them, and with improved efficiency would also improve EU competitiveness on the global stage.

From a linear to a circular economy

Europe took a step closer to the circular economy ideal recently, when the European Commission adopted a proposal to boost recycling and reduce landfill.

The proposal includes more stringent targets for recycling, including targets to recycle 70 % of municipal waste and 80 % of packaging waste by 2030. It also includes a proposed ban on landfilling recyclable and biodegradable waste by 2025. Other targets aim to reduce marine litter and food waste.

Achieving the new waste targets would create 580 000 new jobs, while making Europe more competitive and reducing demand for costly scarce resources, the Commission states. The proposals also mean lower environmental impacts and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Circular economy progress

There is still a huge difference between recycling rates in different EU Member States, according to a report published last year, which looked at countries' progress towards the 2020 target to recycle 50 % of municipal solid waste.

The concept of the circular economy is explained in more detail in the 2014 edition of the EEA’s Signals publication, ‘Well-being and the environment’. It considers how Europe can change some of the economic drivers of environmental harm, benefiting environment and also improving quality of life.

]]>No publisherplastic wastecircular economyrecyclingplasticresource efficiencyresources2014/08/07 10:00:00 GMT+1NewsResource‑efficient green economy and EU policieshttp://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/resourceefficient-green-economy-and-eu
This report highlights the major forces fostering the shift to a resource-efficient green economy in Europe, including the role of EU policies. Currently, the economic and technological changes leading towards green economy objectives across the EU economy are proceeding too slowly; what is required is a much bigger, deeper, and more permanent change in the EU economy and society to create both new opportunities and substitution processes across the economic structure. To bring this about, it is important to study and understand enabling factors and mechanisms at the crossroads of policies and real economy dynamics that could accelerate and direct the transformation.No publisherresource efficiencygreen economyeu policy2014/07/15 11:00:00 GMT+1PublicationHow can we make our economy circular and resource efficient?http://www.eea.europa.eu/media/infographics/how-can-we-make-our/view
Currently, we are using more resources than our planet can produce in a given time. We need to reduce the amount of waste we generate and the amount of materials we extract.No publisherresource efficiencysignals2014consumptioncircular economy2015/03/11 10:44:32 GMT+1InfographicEEA Signals 2014 – Well-being and the environmenthttp://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/signals-2014
Building a resource-efficient and circular economy in Europe: We are extracting and using more resources than our planet can produce in a given time. Current consumption and production levels are not sustainable and risk weakening our planet’s ability to provide for us. We need to reshape our production and consumption systems to enable us to produce the same amount of output with less resource, to re‑use, recover and recycle more, and to reduce the amount of waste we generate.No publishergreen economyresource efficiencysignals2014well-being2014/06/02 18:55:00 GMT+1PublicationProgress on resource efficiency and decoupling in the EU‑27http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/progress-on-resource-efficiency-and
Messages emerging from environmentally extended input‑output analysis
with relevance to the Resource Efficiency Roadmap and the 7EAPNo publisherglobal pressuresmaterial usedecouplinggreen economyinput-output analysisenvironmental accountsnamearesource efficiency roadmapintermediate demandeconomic sectorsdecomposition analysisemissions from productionfinal demandresource efficiency7th environmental action programme2014/06/02 11:10:00 GMT+1PublicationThe economy: resource efficient, green and circularhttp://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2014/articles/the-economy-resource-efficient-green
Our well-being depends on using natural resources. We extract resources, and transform them into food, buildings, furniture, electronic devices, clothes, etc. Yet, our exploitation of resources outpaces the environment’s ability to regenerate them and provide for us. How can we ensure the long-term well-being of our society? Greening our economy can certainly help.Well-being is not easy to define or to measure. Many of us would mention good health, family and friends, personal security, living in a pleasant and healthy environment, job satisfaction, an income that ensures a good living standard as factors contributing to our well-being.

Although it may vary from person to person, economic concerns — being employed, earning a decent income, enjoying good working conditions — play an important part in our well-being. Considerations like job security or unemployment become particularly important in periods of economic crisis and can affect the morale and well-being of the society overall.

It is evident that we need a well-functioning economy that provides us not only the goods and services we need, but also jobs and income ensuring a certain living standard.

The economy depends on the environment

A well-functioning economy depends, among others, on an uninterrupted flow of natural resources and materials, such as timber, water, crops, fish, energy and minerals. Disruption in the supply of key materials can actually bring dependent sectors to a halt, and can force companies to lay people off or stop providing goods and services.

Having an uninterrupted flow implies that we can extract as much as we want. But can we really do that? Or, if we do, how does this impact the environment? How much can we actually extract without harming the environment?

The short answer is that we are extracting too much already, more than what our planet can produce or replenish in a given period. Some studies indicate that in the last hundred years the global per capita consumption of materials doubled, while that of primary energy tripled. In other words, every one of us is consuming on roughly three times as much energy and twice as many materials as our ancestors were consuming in 1900. And what’s more, there are now over 7.2 billion of us doing so, compared with 1.6 billion back in 1900.

This extraction rate and the way we are using resources are actually reducing our planet’s capacity to sustain us. Take the example of fish stocks. Overfishing, pollution and climate change have severely affected global fish stocks. Many coastal communities previously dependent on fisheries had to invest in other sectors, such as tourism. Those that have not managed to diversify their economy are struggling.

In fact, our economic activities are causing a wide range of environmental and social impacts. Air pollution, acidification of ecosystems, biodiversity loss and climate change are all environmental problems seriously affecting our well-being.

Going green and resource efficient

To preserve the environment and keep reaping the benefits it provides us, we need to reduce the amount of materials we are extracting. This requires changing the way we produce goods and services and consume material resources. In short, we need to green our economy.

Although the term has several definitions, ‘green economy’ generally refers to an economy where all production and consumption choices are made with the well-being of society and the overall health of the environment in mind. In more technical terms, it is an economy where society uses resources efficiently, enhancing human well‑being in an inclusive society, while maintaining the natural systems that sustain us.

The EU has already adopted strategic goals as well as concrete action programmes to make its economy more sustainable. The Europe 2020 strategy aims to deliver growth that is smart, sustainable and socially inclusive. It focuses on employment, education and research but also on achieving a low‑carbon economy with climate and energy targets.

The strategy identifies flagship initiatives to achieve these targets. The flagship initiative ‘A resource-efficient Europe’ plays a central role in the EU’s policy in this area. A series of legislative packages are also adopted to implement its objectives.

But what do we need to do to make the EU economy resource efficient? In short, we need to produce and consume in a way that optimises the use of all resources involved. Doing this entails creating production systems that generate decreasing amounts of waste or that produce more with less input.

(c) Stipe Surac / EEA Waste•smART

Considering entire systems, not sectors

We also need to consider entire systems, rather than sectors. A system comprises all the processes and infrastructures that exist in connection with a resource or an activity, which are essential for human activities. For example, the energy system includes the types of energy we use (coal, wind, solar, oil, natural gas, etc.), how we extract or create this energy (wind turbines, oil wells, shale gas, etc.), where we use it (industry, transport, heating homes, etc.) and how we distribute it. It would also address other issues such as the land and water resources affected by energy use and energy production.

Materials in; products and residues out

To produce a good or a service, we need input. For example, to produce crops, in addition to their labour, farmers need land, grain, water, sun (energy), tools, and in modern agriculture, fertilisers and pesticide and more sophisticated tools. The same is more or less true of modern manufacturing. To produce electronic devices, we still need labour, as well as energy, water, land, minerals, metals, glass, plastics, rare earths, research, etc.

Most of the materials used in production in the European Union are also extracted in the EU. In 2011, 15.6 tonnes per capita of materials were used as input in the EU, of which 12.4 tonnes of consisted of materials extracted in the EU, while the remaining 3.2 tonnes were imported.

A small share of these material inputs was exported. The rest — 14.6 tonnes per capita — was used for consumption in the EU. Material consumption varies considerably between countries. For example, the Finns consumed more than 30 tonnes per capita, while the Maltese consumed 5 tonnes per capita in 2011.

In the last decade, the EU economy created more ‘value added’ in terms of Gross Domestic Product for each unit of material (minerals, metals, etc.) consumed. For example, using the same quantity of metal, the economy produced mobile phones or laptops, which were more ‘valuable’ (in simple terms, ‘worth more’) than their predecessors. This is known as resource productivity. In the EU, resource productivity rose by about 20 %: from EUR 1.34 to EUR 1.60 per kg of material between 2000 and 2011. The economy grew by 16.5 % in this period.

Some European countries have a relatively high resource productivity. In 2011, Switzerland, the U.K. and Luxembourg created more than EUR 3 in value added per kilogramme of materials, while Bulgaria, Romania and Latvia created less than EUR 0.5 of value per kilogramme. Resource productivity is closely linked to the economic structure of the country in question. Strong service and knowledge-technology sectors as well as high recycling rates tend to boost resource productivity.

Circular economy

Current production and consumption processes do not only produce goods and services. They also produce residues. These can take the form of pollutants released into the environment, unused pieces of materials (wood or metal), or food that is not consumed for one reason or another.

The same holds true for products at the end of their utility period. Some might be partly recycled or re-used, but some end up in dumps, landfills or incineration. Given that resources were used for these goods and services, any part that is not utilised actually represents a potential economic loss as well as an environmental problem.

Europeans generated on average around 4.5 tonnes of waste per capita in 2010. Approximately half of this amount feeds back into the production process.

The term ‘circular economy’ foresees a production and consumption system that generates as little loss as possible. In an ideal world, almost everything would get re-used, recycled or recovered to produce other outputs. Redesigning products and production processes could help minimise wastage and turn the unused portion into a resource.

People and business ideas

The consumer and the producer are equally important players in greening our economy. The production process is geared to deliver what consumers want. But do we want to own more consumer products, or do we just want the services that the products provide?

More and more companies are adopting business approaches known as ‘collaborative consumption’. This enables consumers to meet their needs leasing, product-service systems and sharing arrangements, rather than purchases. This might require a new way thinking about marketing and product design — with less focus on sales and more focus on making durable and reparable products.

The Internet and social media make such collaborative consumption products and services easier to find and use. And they do not need to be limited to borrowing tools from neighbours, booking a car from a car-sharing scheme or leasing electronic devices. Clothes libraries, where users can borrow clothes, also exist in some EU countries.

Any measure to reduce the rate of new extraction and the amount of waste, including boosting resource productivity, recycling and reusing, relieves the pressures on the environment and boosts our ecosystems’ capacity to provide for us. The healthier our environment is, the better off and healthier we will be in turn.

]]>No publisherresource efficiencygreen economysignals2014circular economy2014/06/02 09:40:00 GMT+1ArticleWaste: a problem or a resource?http://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2014/articles/waste-a-problem-or-a-resource
Waste is not only an environmental problem, but also an economic loss. On average Europeans produce 481 kilogrammes of municipal waste per year. An increasing share of this is recycled or composted, and less is sent to landfill. How can we change the way we produce and consume so as to produce less and less waste, while using all waste as a resource?Europe generates large amounts of waste: food and garden waste, construction and demolition waste, mining waste, industrial waste, sludge, old televisions, old cars, batteries, plastic bags, paper, sanitary waste, old clothes and old furniture… the list goes on.

The amount of waste we generate is closely linked to our consumption and production patterns. The sheer number of products entering the market poses yet another challenge. Demographic changes, like an increase in the number of one-person households, also affect the amount of waste we generate (e.g. packaging goods in smaller units).

The large spectrum of waste types and complex waste-treatment paths (including illegal ones) makes it difficult to get a complete overview of the waste generated and its whereabouts. There are data, albeit of varying quality, for all types of waste.

How much waste do we generate?

The EU Data Centre on Waste compiles waste data at European level. According to data for 2010 for 29 European countries (i.e. EU‑28 and Norway), around 60 % of the waste generated consisted of mineral waste and soil, largely from construction and demolition activities and mining. For metal, paper and cardboard, wood, chemical and medical waste and animal and vegetal wastes, each waste type ranged from 2 % to 4 % of the total.

Around 10 % of the total waste generated in Europe consists of what is known as ‘municipal waste’ — waste generated mainly by households, and to a lesser extent by small businesses, and by public buildings such as schools and hospitals.

In 2012, 481 kg of municipal solid waste was generated per person in the 33 member countries of the European Environment Agency (EEA). There is a slight downward trend from 2007 onwards, which can be explained partly by the economic crisis affecting Europe since 2008.

On the right track: recycling more; landfilling less

The slight dip observed in municipal waste generated in the EU might have helped reduce the environmental impacts of waste, to some extent. However, while waste quantities are important, waste management also plays a key role.

Overall in the EU, an increasing amount of waste is recycled and a decreasing amount is sent to landfills. For municipal waste, the share of recycled or composted waste in the EU-27 increased from 31 % in 2004 to 41 % in 2012.

Despite these achievements, large discrepancies still exist between countries. For example, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland each send less than 2 % of their municipal waste to landfills, while Croatia, Latvia and Malta each landfill more than 90 %. Most of the countries with low landfilling rates have high recycling and incineration rates, both above 30 % of their total municipal waste.

EU legislation sets ambitious targets

The shift in waste management is closely linked to EU waste legislation. The key piece of legislation in this area is the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). It outlines a waste management hierarchy: starting with prevention, followed by preparing for re-use, recycling, recovery and ending with disposal. It aims to prevent waste generation as much as possible, to use waste that is generated as a resource and to minimise the amount of waste sent to landfill.

The WFD along with other EU waste directives (on landfilling, end-of-life vehicles, e-waste, batteries, packaging waste, etc.) includes specific targets. For instance, by 2020, each EU country has to recycle half of its municipal waste; by 2016, 45 % of batteries need to be collected; by 2020, 70 % of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste (by weight) has to be recycled or recovered.

EU countries can adopt different approaches in order to reach their waste targets. Some approaches seem to work better than others. For example, if designed well, landfill taxes appear to be an effective way of reducing landfilled waste. Extended producer responsibility, where the producer has to take back the product at the end of its life, also seems effective.

Air pollution, climate change, soil and water contamination…

Poor waste management contributes to climate change and air pollution, and directly affects many ecosystems and species.

Landfills, considered the last resort in the waste hierarchy, release methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas linked to climate change. Methane is formed by microorganisms present in landfills from biodegradable waste, such as food, paper and garden waste. Depending on the way they are built, landfills might also contaminate soil and water.

After waste is collected, it is transported and treated. The transport process releases carbon dioxide — the most prevalent greenhouse gas — and air pollutants, including particulate matter, into the atmosphere.

Part of the waste might be incinerated or recycled. Energy from waste can be used to produce heat or electricity, which might then replace the energy produced using coal or other fuels. Energy recovery of waste can thus help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Recycling can help even more to lower greenhouse gas emissions and other emissions. When recycled materials replace new materials, fewer new materials need to be extracted or produced in the first place.

Waste affects ecosystems and our health

Some ecosystems, like the marine and coastal ones, can be severely affected by poor management of waste, or by littering. Marine litter is a growing concern, and not only for aesthetic reasons: entanglement and ingestion constitute severe threats to many marine species.

Waste impacts the environment indirectly as well. Whatever is not recycled or recovered from waste represents a loss of raw material and other inputs used in the chain, i.e. in the production, transport and consumption phases of the product. Environmental impacts in the life-cycle chain are significantly larger than those in the waste management phases alone.

Directly or indirectly, waste affects our health and well-being in many ways: methane gases contribute to climate change, air pollutants are released into the atmosphere, freshwater sources are contaminated, crops are grown in contaminated soil and fish ingest toxic chemicals, subsequently ending up on our dinner plates…

Illegal activities such as illegal dumping, burning or exports also play a part, but it is difficult to estimate the full extent of such activities, or of their impacts.

Economic loss and management costs

Waste also represents an economic loss and burden to our society. Labour and the other inputs (land, energy, etc.) used in its extraction, production, dissemination and consumption phases are also lost when the ‘leftovers’ are discarded.

Moreover, waste management costs money. Creating an infrastructure for collecting, sorting and recycling is costly, but once in place, recycling can generate revenues and create jobs.

There is also a global dimension to waste, linked to our exports and imports. What we consume and produce in Europe could generate waste elsewhere. And in some instances, it actually becomes a good traded across borders, both legally and illegally.

Waste as a resource

What if we could use waste as a resource and thereby scale down the demand for extraction of new resources? Extracting fewer materials and using existing resources would help avert some of the impacts created along the chain. In this context, unused waste also represents a potential loss.

Turning waste into a resource by 2020 is one of the key objectives of the EU’s Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. The roadmap also highlights the need to ensure high-quality recycling, eliminate landfilling, limit energy recovery to non-recyclable materials, and stop illegal shipments of waste.

And it is possible to achieve these things. In many countries, kitchen and gardening waste constitutes the biggest fraction of municipal solid waste. This type of waste, when collected separately, can be turned into an energy source or fertiliser. Anaerobic digestion is a waste treatment method that involves submitting bio-waste to a biological decomposition process similar to the one in landfills, but under controlled conditions. Anaerobic digestion produces biogas and residual material, which in turn can be used as fertiliser, like compost.

An EEA study from 2011 looked at the potential gains from better management of municipal waste. Its findings are striking. Improved management of municipal waste between 1995 and 2008 resulted in significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions, mainly attributable to lower methane emissions from landfill and emissions avoided through recycling. If, by 2020, all countries fully meet the Landfill Directive’s landfill diversion targets, they could cut an additional 62 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions from the life cycle — which would be a significant contribution to the EU’s climate change mitigation efforts.

Tackling waste starts with prevention

The potential gains are immense, and they can facilitate the EU’s move towards a circular economy, where nothing is wasted. Moving up the waste hierarchy offers environmental gains, even for countries with high recycling and recovery rates.

Unfortunately, our current production and consumption systems do not offer many incentives for preventing and reducing waste. From product design and packaging to choice of materials, the entire value chain needs to be redesigned first with waste prevention in mind, and then the ‘leftovers’ of one process can be made into an input for another.

Moving up the waste hierarchy requires a joint effort by all the parties concerned: consumers, producers, policymakers, local authorities, waste treatment facilities, etc. Consumers willing to sort their household waste can only recycle if the infrastructure for collecting their sorted waste is in place. The opposite also holds true; municipalities can recycle an increasing share only if households sort their waste.

Ultimately, whether waste will constitute a problem or a resource all depends on how we manage it.